Reading Los Angeles: Join The Times' new book club
Opinion Opinion L.A.

Hobby Lobby's Obamacare objection: Readers aren't buying it

Can a business like Hobby Lobby legitimately claim religious freedom in its legal battle against the Affordable Care Act's mandate that insurance plans cover drugs some people believe cause abortions?

Notre Dame law professor Richard W. Garnett argued on The Times' Op-Ed page Thursday that Hobby Lobby -- which, he notes, closes its stores on Sundays so its employees can go to church, has Christian music as its stores' background music and doesn't sell shot glasses -- has the beliefs of its owners so embedded in its business practices that requiring it to cover abortifacients would indeed violate its religious freedoms. 

So far, readers have bristled at Garnett's argument.

YEAR IN REVIEW: Washington's 5 biggest 'fails' of 2013

More than a dozen people have sent letters in response to Garnett, and all say the healthcare law should apply to Hobby Lobby as it would any other for-profit business. Many say the business is wrong to impose the religious beliefs of its owners on its thousands of employees; others warn of a slippery slope should businesses be granted a religion-based exemption from a federal law. Some say Hobby Lobby is misinformed by viewing the "morning-after pill" as a drug that induces abortion.

Here are their letters.

Michael Pirrung of Irvine says Hobby Lobby can't claim conscientious-objector status:

"However artfully the Hobby Lobby position regarding insurance coverage of certain contraceptives (because they act as abortifacients) is argued, it ignores an inconvenient fact: These contraceptives (and early abortions) are legal, however repulsive they may be to Hobby Lobby.

"Personally, it is always possible to take a moral stance not to engage in an activity at odds with one's own beliefs. This is the essence of the conscientious-objector status for Quakers that excused them from military service. However, pacifists may not decline to pay income taxes for the portion of the federal budget for defense.

"Since the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of one aspect of the Affordable Care Act as a tax, there seems no difference in law between the individual mandate to have insurance and mandated coverage of legal contraceptives. The individual choice not to do something does not equate to a right not to pay for it collectively."

Cypress resident Diane Welch says Plan B isn't abortion:

"Since the courts have decided that corporations are people for certain legal purposes, we find ourselves debating whether a company, Hobby Lobby -- a for-profit business with thousands of employees of different faiths -- can dictate workers' religious beliefs by restricting a vital portion of total coverage from their employees.

"It seems the company has no problem with some forms of contraception, and that its objection to the 'morning-after pill' is based on a misconception. There is a difference between an abortifacient and a contraceptive. Plan B prevents an ovum from being implanted at all; there is nothing to abort. 

"The business model of Hobby Lobby as a Christian-owned company is well known. Its action on the Affordable Care Act to prevent thousands of its employees from exercising their constitutional rights tarnishes the very image they wish to portray."

Liz Fautsch of Encinitas says Hobby Lobby's religious freedom is intact:

"Garnett writes, 'It would be strange if the law were to welcome sermonizing from Starbucks on the government shutdown but tell the Greens and Hobby Lobby to focus strictly on the bottom line.'

"Hobby Lobby is free to sermonize all it wants on abortion. What it should not be allowed to do is interfere in women's healthcare choices.

"Health insurance is not a Hobby Lobby product; it is a product of the private insurance marketplace. It is illogical for one company's religious preferences to dictate the composition of another company's products or how consumers choose to use them."

Santa Monica resident Joan Walston speaks up for Hobby Lobby's non-Christians:

"Garnett does a great job describing how Hobby Lobby reaches out to the Christian community. Its policies, he says, enable the owners and their business to express their faith and 'exercise their religion.'

However, I wonder how this strikes Hobby Lobby employees who are not Christian, who celebrate the Sabbath on another day of the week or perhaps not at all, and who don't necessarily wish to listen to Christian music all day long. In what way do such policies respect their faiths?"

Barry Davis of Agoura Hills makes the case for all businesses following the law:

"To Garnett's argument, I have one distilling question: What if the business owners are strict Christian Scientists? Do those owners then have the right to refuse to offer all health insurance to their employees because of the belief that God heals all?

"Garnett's tortured logic notwithstanding, Americans have a right to what the law mandates regardless of their employers' beliefs. The argument isn't 'if you don't want to live according to my beliefs, find another job'; it's 'if you don’t want to follow the law, don't have a business that has employees.'

"The employers don't park their beliefs 'at the marketplace door.' Why? Because businesses don't have beliefs, only their owners do."


A wake-up call from Detroit

The college-for-all model isn't working

2013 endings: Columnist Patt Morrison on what she won't miss

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Health shouldn't be based on where you live
    Health shouldn't be based on where you live

    Strand by strand, my younger sister has been pulling the threads of her life back together after a couple of lost decades. A year ago at age 52, and with the financial support of our extended family, she found housing in Virginia, where we were both born and raised, and she has since gotten a part-time...

  • House GOP lawsuit wages surprising fight over federal purse strings
    House GOP lawsuit wages surprising fight over federal purse strings

    When the House GOP authorized a lawsuit accusing President Obama of overstepping his authority, the rationale it offered was a head-scratcher: the administration's move to delay the employer mandate, a requirement that House Republicans unanimously opposed.

  • Who should and shouldn't get heart transplants -- and why?
    Who should and shouldn't get heart transplants -- and why?

    When a Georgia teenager named Anthony Stokes got himself killed not long ago, smashing up a stolen car in a police chase after supposedly taking a shot at an old lady in her house, the regret that poured out online was not for the death of the 17-year-old, but for the “waste” of the transplanted...

  • Children's Health Insurance Program deserves funding
    Children's Health Insurance Program deserves funding

    In what may be a hopelessly quixotic effort, supporters of the federal Children's Health Insurance Program are trying to persuade Congress to renew its funding almost a year in advance — and in a lame-duck session. Nevertheless, lawmakers ought to heed that call. The program plugs a troubling gap...

  • The GOP's shameful lawsuit against Obamacare
    The GOP's shameful lawsuit against Obamacare

    The lawsuit the House GOP filed against President Obama on Friday opened a new front in the attack on the 2010 healthcare law, this time targeting the subsidies that reduce deductibles, co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses faced by lower-income Americans. According to the complaint, the subsidies...

  • A sensible cap on costly prescription drugs
    A sensible cap on costly prescription drugs

    To help prevent Americans from being bankrupted by medical bills, the 2010 federal healthcare law placed an annual cap on deductibles, co-pays and other out-of-pocket costs imposed by health insurers. That's turned out to be a mixed blessing for Americans who suffer from certain chronic diseases,...

  • Stop the guessing game over which doctors are in-network
    Stop the guessing game over which doctors are in-network

    One of the loudest complaints about the policies sold through Covered California, the state's new health insurance exchange, is that they provide access to far fewer doctors than promised. On Wednesday, state regulators finally confirmed and quantified the problem with respect to two leading insurers,...

  • Jonathan Gruber should've been Time's Person of the Year
    Jonathan Gruber should've been Time's Person of the Year

    Jonathan Gruber should have been Time's Person of the Year. The magazine gave it to the "Ebola Fighters" instead. Good for them; they're doing God's work. Still, Gruber would have been better.